Home » Uncategorized (Page 22)
Category Archives: Uncategorized
“Don’t Force Your Morality On Me” ::: Religious Intolerance, pt. 2
Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl helps us see that when people say, “Don’t force your morality on me,” they are at that very moment, attempting to force their own morality on you. The excerpts come from Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), 145-46.
When confronted with the line, “You shouldn’t force your morality on me,” simply ask, “Why not?” …
He’s going to have a hard time explaining why you shouldn’t impose your views without imposing his morality on you. This forces him to state a moral rule while simultaneously denying that moral rules exist. This same tactic is played out in the following short dialogues:
_______________
“You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
“Why not?”
“Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”
“If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”
_______________
“You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
“I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”
“You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
“Is that your opinion?”
“Yes.”
“Then why are you forcing it on me?”
“But you’re saying that only your view is right.”
“Am I wrong?”
“Yes.”
“Is that your view.”
“Yes.”
“Then you’re saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”
_______________
“Don’t push your morality on me.”
“Why? Don’t you believe in morality.”
“Sure, but I believe in my morality, not yours.”
“Well then, how do you know what’s moral?”
“I think people should decide individually.”
“That’s exactly what I’m doing. And I’m deciding you’re immoral.”
“What’s the problem? Live and let live is your value, not mine.”
_______________
“You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
“Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like you’re telling me I’m wrong.”
“You are.”
“Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?”
Tony Jones Emerges on Same Sex ::: ThingZ EmergenT
Evangelical Village recently posted this quotation from Tony Jones.
I now believe that GLBTQ [people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state. —Tony Jones
In the past I had always defended Tony Jones against anyone who accused him of sanctioning the homosexual lifestyle as compatible with Christianity because he never had come right out with a statement about his position. Even Mark Driscoll said he didn’t know where these men stood. When people would accuse them of things, my response was usually to challenge people to offer quotations from their writings or lectures or sermon’s in which they could demonstrate warrant for their accusations. I suppose I won’t be doing this anymore with Tony on the issue of homosexuality.
I prefer still yet, however, to see that people have attempted to understand where these guys might be retaining their integrity in their own minds. I think the key to understanding how Tony might consider his statement as compatible with the biblical teaching is his parenthetical statement. (at least as much of any of us can)
Sure homosexuality is sinful, but so is pride, and who would argue that there aren’t plenty of Christians who “live in” pride?
Sure the bible claims that those who are “homosexual” will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9), but it also says that the “slanderer” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Who is willing to defend a position that no Christians are consistently engaged in slanderous activity?
So you see … it’s not like Tony thinks there is some verse in the Bible that says, “Homosexuality is not a sin,” nor is he claiming that. He’s just trying to do a little interpretive realism. We don’t seem to be eager to conclude that slanderous behavior calls people’s Christianity into question, so why consider homosexuality that way? Tony (and others) may think such a hermeneutic is arbitrary when you consider the list in 1 Cor 6:9. Why interpret one form of sin in this list as on a different level than another?
I’m not saying Tony is right. I don’t think he is. Maybe we should just treat slanderous activity as having more ability to call someone’s Christianity into question. Before I would consistently interpret this 1 Cor 6:9 list so as to water it down, I would be more inclined to interpret them all more strictly.
But I do understand how Tony might justify his position biblically, even if I disagree with him.
___-___-__–__–_—_—HT: Evangelical Village—_—_–__–__-___-___
“Cause I Was Mad at My Mom” ::***:: Human Depravity Exposed
Or … stolen bread is sweet.
:__::::__::::__::::::____:::::::______HT: The Contemporary Calvinist
Dictation vs. Inspiration • Islam cf. Christianity
Are there differences in the way Christians conceive of their Bible, and the way Muslims conceive of their Qur’an? The following excerpt is written by “From the Middle East,” a muslim missionary for unreached muslims:
Dictation – The Generous Qur’an is considered the actual speech of God. God did not inspire anyone to write it, He dictated it to Muhammad through Gabriel. This concept is present in the Holy Scriptures (i.e. the Ten Commandments and prophetic announcements), but dictation is not the only means through which God authors books. The Scriptures are certainly God-breathed, inspired and those who recorded them were carried along by the Spirit of God, but the authors’ respective personalities and various literary styles are evident as well.
For more differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, see the full post The Bible and the Qur’an are not the Same.
——————:::::::___–__–__–=====HT: sbcIMPACT
::: Proposition 8 = Bigotry & Hate ::: Artistic Rhetoric
If you’ve already seen this video, skip to my brief comments below. Otherwise, watch the video first, then read my comments.
Notice this: The substance of the argument featured in this genius media could also be used as a grounds to justify the kind of “love,” that expresses itself through what we normally call statutory rape and child molestation rather than “love.” The Bible condemns it, but then again, the Bible condemns a lot things. Since people pick and choose, choose “love” over hate. Plenty of 50 year old men “love” children under the age of 15, but we usually incriminate them as if it deserved to punished.
Because of my belief in the ultimate authority of scripture and my understanding of basic rules of hermeneutics, I cannot agree with condoning homosexuality (although excluding marriage rights, I would advocate for certain other gay rights).
However, the rhetoric on this video is impressive. In spite of the fact that it confuses several issues, caricatures Christians, and indicates an inexcusable unfamiliarity with biblical hermeneutics, its persuasive effect is likely powerful for those who share the common ground of ignorance about Christian beliefs, attitudes, and reasonable hermeneutics, and who wish the Bible would just mind its own business and butt out of the discussion.
… — … –… –… … … … — … –HT: Vitamin Z
Christmas Has Pagan Roots ::: So What?
If you think we should stop celebrating Christmas just because it has pagan roots, consider the following.
The music you listen to, the way your calendar and clock measures time, the names you use to refer to various planets in the universe, etc., all have ties to pagan religion. If you think just because something has pagan roots, that Christians shouldn’t participate in it, you would have to give up your calendar, all of your music, and much of our astrological termonology, and lots of other things you take for granted and your common sense judges to be permissible. Originally, there were probably all sorts of pagan ideas strongly associated with the way we measure time on our clander, but that doesn’t mean a Christian who uses such “origianlly pagan” systems is somehow participating in pagan religious practices. Originally, much of our musical tastes had ties in all sorts of pagan celebrations, but that doesn’t mean that musical instruments and styles of celebration should be “off limits” for Christians who use music to worship God. Don’t forget that Yahweh commanded the Jews to adapt pagan music to worship Him in the Old Testament. The Jews didn’t start from scratch in their attempts to worship God, they adopted much of the pagan forms of worship to Judaism.
Where do you think celebrating birthday’s originated? It’s not in the Bible. So I guess it’s pagan too? What about basketball? Should Christians particiapte in sports celebrations? It’s pagan.
Why not rather give thanks to God that whatever celebration the pagan culture had going on before it evolved into a Christ-centered celebration in the West (notwithstanding the current cultural changes), Christians sort-of “high-jacked” the celebration and conformed it to a Christ-centered worldview and lifestyle.
For a better article on this … see Should Christians Celebrate Christmas? at sbcIMPACT
“Don’t Push Your Morality Off On Me” ::: Religious Intolerance
Passionate adherents of the world’s major religions tend to be branded as intolerant on ethical issues; as if they were the only ones “pushing” our morality off on other people. The below conversation demonstrates that people who makes such accusations against religious people are liable for recrimination. The excerpt comes from Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), 148-49.
Bill was a friendly, tolerant sort, willing to talk with me about Christianity until the question of homosexuality came up. My apparent lack of tolerance made him uncomfortable, and he said so. “That’s what bugs me about Christians,” he said. “You seem nice at first, but then you start getting judgmental.”
“What’s wrong with that?” I said. It was a leading question.
“It’s not right to judge other people.”
“If it’s wrong to judge people, Bill, then why are you judging me?” This question stopped him in his tracks. He’d been impaled on his own principle, and he knew it.
“You’re right,” he admitted. “I was judging you. Kind of hard to avoid it.” He paused a moment, scratched his head, and regrouped. “How about this? It’s okay to judge people, as long as you don’t force your morality on them,” he said, thinking he was on safer ground. “That’s when you cross the line.”
“Okay, Bill, can I ask you a question?”
“Sure.”
“Is that your morality?”
“Yes.”
“Then why are you pushing your morality on me?” Bill was getting stuck on Plantinga’s tar baby. He tried a couple more false starts but couldn’t extract himself. Finally in frustration he said, “This isn’t fair!”
“Why not?” I asked.
“I can’t find a way to say it so it sounds right.” He thought I was playing a word trick on him.
“Bill, it doesn’t sound right because it isn’t right; it’s self-refuting,” I explained.
At this point in the conversation some people throw up their hands and say, “Now you’ve got me confused.” In these cases I respond, “No, you were confused when you started. You just now realized it.”
Calvinism Makes the Universal Offer Insincere? ::: Hardly
All philosophical objections [that I’ve heard] to Actual Atonement (better known as Limited Atonement) are mistakes in logic. Perhaps the most common is the objection that a limited view of the atonement makes the universal offer of the gospel insincere.
First, we might say that if the Bible teaches on the one hand that God only intends to eternally redeem the elect, and on the other hand that we should offer salvation to all, we should conclude that God’s offer must be genuine even if our pre-conceived philosophical understanding makes the legitimacy of such an offer a genuine mystery.
Second, this objection misunderstands the nature of the offer. The universal offer of salvation is always contingent. The offer is not intended to benefit everyone, only those who repent and believe. Thus, the nature of the offer itself astronomically limits the scope of its intended benefactors by virtue of its built-in conditionality. The offer, therefore, is just as genuine as the offer “Whosoever meets the requirements for enrollment to SBTS, as well as the requirements for discounts on tuition, will be able to receive such benefits.” The offer is intended for, and voiced to, all seminary students indiscriminately, but the benefit is only intended for a select group. This contingency does not ruin the genuine nature of the offer.
Many of the other objections leveled against an actual view of the atonement are really objections against Calvinism as a whole—that it contradicts the concept of a loving God, that it is unfair, that it prohibits people who sincerely desire to be saved from actually being saved. These objections impose philosophical definitions of love, justice, and grace that are foreign to the Bible. They also misunderstand the nature of responsible Calvinism.
The Implications of Amnesia for Christian Anthropology
A famous Amnesiac died recently and was reported in the New York Times. The article presses me to ask several questions all over again in my mind.
Supposedly, when we die, according to the Christian worldview, our souls remain in tact, which means our memory and personality, etc. remain in tact. However … if our soul’s are immaterial and retain memory, why is it that when our brain, a material part of the human body, malfunctions or is removed, we have the ability to loose our memory. In other words, it would seem that if the human soul always remains in tact, human memory would always remain in tact–even if our material bodies completely decay or malfunction. Yet … Amnesia (exhibit A).
Could the Biblical language about the human soul refer to the totality of conscious experience mediated by the brain, which will be replaced in the resurrection? Some Christian theologians are beginning to postulate a new paradigm for the human soul that teaches something like that.
As Christians, we must reckon with reality. Our brains apparently have exclusive power of human memory, thus of human consciousness. This makes it hard to understand how we can expect a non-material soul to retain such consciousness between death and resurrection if it’s not retaining it now apart from the brain. Has God made it necessary for our personhood to be mediated through a physical brain?
Anybody have any thoughts?
SAET Pastor’s Conference ::: Advancing Ecclesial Theology
From the SAET Page:
The SAET Pastor’s Conference is a theology conference dedicated to exploring and promoting the pastor-theologian paradigm. The 2009 Pastor’s Conference will be held October 11-12, 2009 at Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park Illinois (near Chicago).
The Pastor-theologian: His Life and Ministry
What is a pastor-theologian? Why does the church need pastor-theologians? What’s the difference between ecclesial theology and academic theology? The 2009 conference will discuss the pastor-theologian as both pastor and theologian, exploring ways in which the life and ministry of the pastor-theologian is worked out in the context of the local church.
Details forthcoming.
___—___—___—__–__–_–_-HT: SAET
T h e o • p h i l o g u e 